From what you just read, Ronaldo claimed 'she made herself available'. That is actually quite a vague statement. Does 'available' mean talking about the idea, being in the same room, or spending time with the other etc? None of theose things equate a defintive says.

'Even though she didn't want to' - she didn't want to - that would equate to rape if he did it anyway. Emphasis on 'if', nothing is proven yet, and I don't trust twitter as a source. But I seem to remember that Ronaldo referred to himself as a slave in 2009, went he was angling for a transfer. Doesn't paint the best picture of his personality back then.

As for the MeToo movement, yes I'm sure you find it utterly dreadful that women are feeling more empowered to out out against sexual violence. How toxic, how will these men cope? :/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/7405344/cristiano-ronaldo-admitted-lawyers-kathryn-mayorga-rape/

That's what he told his legal team. I hope he was lying because he is a great player and my phone spellchecked me on my Op i cahnged it now.

First of all, they're doing it publicly and not through the law. Second of all, in vast majority of cases they offer absolutely no definitive proof. Hardly any of the accused have been prosecuted yet their lives are ruined. Any woman can cry rape and ruin a mans life with a half decent story.

And about this case - Ronaldo has already paid her almost 400k years ago. To me it smells like she's blown the money and needs another payoff. Even if what he did was true, she had the chance to prosecute at the time. She chose a payoff instead. Don't come back a decade later, by the time you've probably spent all that money and try to come after him again. You had two options; take the payoff or prosecute. She made her pick. 

And what does Ronaldo feeling like a slave in 2009 have to do with this case or his character? Zero

Would you want someone to accuse you of rape based on a bit of vague info here and there? No? Then don't do it to others.

Maybe he's guilty, maybe he's not. There's presumption of innocence, of course, though that applies only to the judicial system and FIFA and Juventus are free to treat it as they wish.

Personally, I think the same goes for that American judge: innocent until proven guilty, as far as criminal law is concerned, but the senate should be free to decide whether an accusation on its own is enough to disqualify someone.

Of course, having millions and millions and millions of cash he's unlikely to ever be punished on any meaningful way.

He admitted it.

Not proven. And either way, he's paid her 400k with the clear understanding that this would go away. You cant have your cake and eat it to. 

Its in the documents he told his lawyers.

And raping someone and paying them not to mention it is still fucked up dude.

Well at least the accuser remembered where and when it happened this time, so that's progress I guess. This kinda reminds me of the Kobe Bryant incident where it was kinda but not really consensual at the time, but not really rape either.

For the latter point, it says quite a lot about his character. He was already earnings millions but called himself a slave as his then club were not allowing him to transfer to Real Madrid. It showed him to be entitled and very self-absorbed. I don't believe him to be that person now, but I think having that sort of attitude at the time the alleged event took place is quite relevant to the case.

Also if Ronaldo paid her off, then that does suggest he has something to hide. If not, then why pay her off at all? In any regards, the mental effects of sexual assault are typically so traumatic victims don't exactly recall reliving it, as you would have to do in court. This is why many cases are reported much later or not at all. Has she asked for more money? It doesn't seem like that is her goal here.

But the line 'ruin a man's life' just stinks. It reminds me off an old Bojack Horseman episode. The allegations are not proven - yet, but they may well be in time (equally they may not). You criticise people for assuming guilt prematurely but you appear to be assuming innocence on the basis its a claim against a famous person so the claimant must only be doing it for attention or money - which is equally as farcical.